This is a personal injury suit in which the trial court granted
summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff alleged that he purchased
a pair of shoes manufactured by defendant Florsheim from co-defendant
shoe store; that the shoes were defectively constructed by the
manufacturer in that the heels were extremely slippery which
caused him to fall and injure himself. Plaintiff also claimed
that the shoe store was negligent by failing to warn him of
the intrinsic hazards of the shoe heels, thereby breaching a
duty of care and that the defendant store breached an
implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendants answered and moved for summary judgment based on the
pleadings and plaintiff's deposition. In his deposition, plaintiff
testified that a small metal wedge in each shoe heel caused the
fall. The morning of the fall and before the fall occurred, plaintiff
admitted he had been slipping and losing his balance while wearing
the shoes. Moreover, plaintiff had previously purchased Florsheim
shoes with the same kind of metal plate on the heel. Plaintiff
admitted that he was aware of the nature of the heel of the shoes
he was wearing, as he had had problems with the prior pair of
Florsheim shoes he had purchased and had removed the metal plate
from those shoes.

Held:

1. Plaintiff bases his claim against the manufacturer under Code
§ 105-106 which imposes liability on a manufacturer of defective
products. The evidence shows merely that the plaintiff fell while
wearing Florsheim shoes. This standing alone is insufficient
to create an inference of the existence of any defect in the
shoe. There is nothing in the record to remotely suggest in what
manner the shoes were defective. A metal plate or wedge in the
heel of a shoe is a common part of a common article that is used
for walking, a normal activity.
McGrew v. S.S. Kresge Co.,
140 Ga. App. 149 (230 S.E.2d 119).
Therefore Florsheim has made a prima facie showing that
a judgment was demanded for it as a matter of
law. Grant of summary judgment to Florsheim was proper.

2. Co-defendant Miller-Taylor Shoe Co., Inc., had no duty of warning
plaintiff of the potential danger of slipping and falling while
wearing Florsheim shoes. Under the existing facts, plaintiff
had full knowledge equal to that of this co-defendant. Anyone
wearing a pair of shoes is subject to slipping and falling. There
is no duty on the manufacturer or seller to warn of obvious common
dangers connected with the use of a product.
Poppell v. Waters,
126 Ga. App. 385 (190 S.E.2d 815).

3. As we have held that the evidence demands a Conclusion that
the shoes were not defective, there can be no breach of an implied
warranty of merchantability under Code Ann. § 109A-2-314
(2) (c) as against the co-defendant shoe store.
SeePierce v. Liberty Furniture Co.,
141 Ga. App. 175 (233 S.E.2d 33).